Main Contractor

McLaughlin & Harvey: Back to Basics

McLaughlin & Harvey connected delivery plans to actual submissions, shared model-check results with delivery teams and collected supplier data in asset registers. Agreed responsibilities and linked records showed what arrived, what needed correction and who needed support.

McLaughlin & Harvey · 2 December 2024

Why MortaConnect information plans, submissions and review results

Delivery evidenceViewpoint for Projects

Model checkingSolibri, with results shared through Morta

Asset dataSubcontractors updated their register views directly

Plans linked to submissionsViewpoint for Projects returned actual delivery dates to the plan in Morta.

Direct asset-register updatessubcontractors entered their information through their own views instead of returning another spreadsheet.

Glenn McCaffrey, Digital Construction Director. Geri Gardner, then Information Manager. Carpgiane Dos Santos, Digital Construction Manager.

McLaughlin & Harvey connected information delivery plans to actual submissions, put model-check results in front of delivery teams and collected supplier data within asset registers. The team specified what information was required and who was responsible for producing it. Connected records then showed what arrived, what needed correction and who needed support.

Four activities: specify · deliver · check · evidence.

Four labelled icons in a row: specify, deliver, check and evidence. — *Specify, deliver, check and evidence formed Glenn’s four activities for managing information requirements and the decisions behind delivery.*

Executive summary

McLaughlin & Harvey's digital construction team built its approach around project-delivery responsibilities. Supply-chain task information delivery plans in Morta fed a master plan in which design managers agreed dependencies and baseline dates. Actual submission dates returned from Viewpoint for Projects for comparison with that baseline, while work-package keywords helped commercial colleagues filter information in the common data environment. The data-checking workflow kept Solibri as the checking tool, shared the reports through Morta and used Power BI to display trends. When unresolved issues stopped moving, the digital team contacted the relevant consultant or subcontractor to ask what was blocking progress and offer support. Subcontractors also entered manufacturer and design information directly into views of an asset register, removing the step of returning a spreadsheet for someone else to transfer. The approach still required specialist work, operational involvement and supply-chain engagement. Its delivery dashboards were in beta, and the team was still working through pushback and mistakes.

The results

The master information delivery plan, or MIDP, let design managers compare baseline dates they had agreed with actual submission dates returned from Viewpoint. Work-package keywords let commercial colleagues filter CDE information by package. Asset register views let subcontractors supply information into the same register the digital team managed, without a returned spreadsheet needing to be transferred into it.

Power BI displayed drawings at critical points in the CDE workflow. The team also had versions for inspection and test plans, risk assessments and method statements. These dashboards were in beta at the session, giving colleagues across procurement, design and handover a connected view of where deliverables had reached.

Power BI drawings dashboard with counts, a doughnut chart and coloured horizontal bars for workflow stages. — *The drawings dashboard brought CDE workflow status into Power BI. These delivery dashboards were still in beta at the session.*

Model-data trends helped the digital team decide when to offer support. A flat line of unresolved issues on the dashboard told the digital team that corrections were not progressing, prompting someone to contact the relevant consultant or subcontractor and offer help.

The challenge

McLaughlin & Harvey had grown from traditional contracting into work with greater design and information requirements. Information could lose continuity at handovers between project stages. Teams gathered it, handed it on and then had to build it up again.

Chart of information quantity through design, build and operate, with repeated drops below an upward dashed line and icons for programme, cost, quality and safety. — *Information fell away at handovers between project stages, leaving teams to build it up again.*

Information is part of project delivery because decisions depend on the right person having the right material at the right time. In Glenn's account, gaps affected the same areas a contractor managed every day: programme, cost, quality, and health and safety. Treating information as an asset gave the digital construction team a purpose beyond producing models.

The work covered geometry, data and documents. Alongside drawings and manuals, the company needed skills for coordinating models and delivering structured asset information, including COBie data. Client requirements for record models and digital handover information meant that the team had to understand those deliverables from the start.

The solution

Make requirements usable

Specification starts by identifying what information is required, who must produce it and when. For McLaughlin & Harvey, that meant understanding the client's information requirements and specifying them to the responsible supply-chain parties. Those parties could then deliver the required information through an agreed process, and the digital construction team could check the output against the requirement.

The project team also needed to retain evidence supporting the decisions it made during delivery. For sustainability credits, that meant keeping the information needed to substantiate its claims.

Put the process ahead of the tool

The team refined the processes it already used, aligned people and processes with agreed standards, and selected technology to support that structure. In one field-management review, Glenn asked colleagues to define the strategic objective and the process before considering what the software could do. The exercise kept the tool decision tied to the information needed in the field.

Diagram connecting information management with geometry, data and documents, people, processes and technology, and agreed standards, methods and procedures. — *Coordinated geometry, data and documents depended on people and processes working to agreed standards.*

Connect the delivery plan to actual submissions

McLaughlin & Harvey had an information delivery planning process before selecting the supporting technology. Supply-chain teams completed task information delivery plans, or TIDPs, in Morta. Morta aggregated those plans into the MIDP, where design managers evaluated predecessors and dependencies, agreed them and set baseline dates against the programme. That gave the design managers an agreed delivery baseline.

Information delivery planning flowchart beside six steps from completing TIDPs on Morta through agreeing dependencies and generating information. — *The supply chain completed TIDPs in Morta. Design managers used the combined MIDP to agree dependencies and baseline dates.*

Morta document showing a task information delivery plan as a table with deliverable rows and multiple date and status columns. — *A supply-chain task information delivery plan in Morta contributed deliverables and dates to the combined master plan.*

The supply chain generated its information and uploaded deliverables to Viewpoint for Projects. Actual submission dates then returned to the MIDP in Morta. Design managers could compare what had arrived with the dates they had agreed.

Viewpoint for Projects folder tree and a list of uploaded deliverables. — *Actual submission dates returned from Viewpoint for Projects to the MIDP in Morta for comparison with the agreed baseline.*

The team also assigned work-package codes in Morta. A connection brought those codes into Viewpoint as keywords, allowing commercial colleagues to filter the information in the CDE by package.

Geri received positive feedback from supply-chain teams and design managers who had used the plans. The familiar table format made the process approachable for those users.

Keep model checking and reporting connected

Carpgiane's team kept its established checking and validation mechanisms in Solibri. Morta shared the resulting reports with subcontractors and consultants, while Power BI displayed progress and trends. Each tool retained a distinct role in the team's workflow.

Solibri remained the checking tool. Morta carried the results to the team, and Power BI displayed progress.

The Morta tables identified the fields being tested, the information that met the requirement and the items needing correction. They also carried inclusion and exclusion information for COBie or bespoke asset registers, with suggestions to help recipients respond. Consultants and subcontractors who already had access to the hub could see the relevant check results and guidance there, without receiving another report spreadsheet or an invitation to another platform.

Morta table of asset data checks, with coloured status columns and text guidance beside rows of model information. — *The check report made the tested fields, failures and guidance available in a hub the delivery team already used.*

Use trends to decide when to offer support

The team's existing automations ran data checks after a model was uploaded to Viewpoint. Results passed into Morta and then Power BI, where the digital team could follow correction trends across revisions without contacting the author after every check.

A flat line of unresolved issues on the dashboard was the prompt to engage. The digital team could contact the relevant consultant or subcontractor, ask what was preventing progress and offer help or guidance. The chart separated total, verified, validated and not verified entries. Carpgiane also stressed that the apparently simple reporting view depended on considerable work by the team.

Model data trend chart plotting total, verified, validated and not verified entries across revisions. — *Consistently unresolved issues prompted the digital team to contact a consultant or subcontractor and offer help with corrections.*

Collect asset information in the register

For projects requiring a bespoke asset register, the team compiled the register in Morta. When the register itself was the deliverable, the information could remain there. When the deliverable required information to return to a model, the team used an integration for that step.

Asset register table with item descriptions and coloured fields for asset information. — *The team compiled this bespoke asset register in Morta for a live project.*

Tailored views gave each subcontractor access to the relevant manufacturer and design fields. Their entries updated the asset register itself, removing the step in which a returned spreadsheet had to find its way back into the register. Regular-expression checks tested whether entries matched the configured patterns as subcontractors filled in the register.

Morta data-collection document with a table for mechanical, electrical and plumbing subcontractor information. — *Subcontractors updated the asset register through views for their manufacturer and design information. Regular-expression checks supported entry.*

The implementation

Build capability around a delivery obligation

Glenn initially joined McLaughlin & Harvey to work on projects in preconstruction. As information management reached across design, procurement, construction and handover, he moved into a director-level position reporting to the board. That route helped the digital construction team work with the managers responsible for delivery across the business.

Client information requirements gave the team a concrete starting point. Glenn brought in Rob Jackson and Emma Hooper as information management consultants to help meet project deliverables and develop the company's own capability. IFC knowledge supported an openBIM approach in which designers could keep their chosen authoring tools while meeting agreed exchange requirements.

The team developed templates for BIM execution plans, exchange information requirements, information standards, and production methods and procedures. The digital team populated those templates, and the requirements formed part of appointment agreements. This carried defined responsibilities into project delivery.

Geri worked with operations colleagues to establish Viewpoint workflows, naming conventions and status codes around the agreed process. The CDE already existed in the business. The implementation focused on making it support the work that operations and delivery teams needed.

Six arrows labelled people, standards, information management templates, technology, checking and reporting, and delivery beside a diagram of the supporting systems. — *The implementation sequence started with people and standards, then moved through templates, technology, checking and delivery.*

The team

McLaughlin & Harvey developed an in-house digital construction team with distinct planning and data responsibilities. Glenn contrasted the earlier use of consultants for delivery with a later role in which consultants could assess processes and help the company improve. Geri's planning and CDE work and Carpgiane's data work formed separate parts of that internal capability.

Team slide naming Glenn McCaffrey as Digital Construction Director, Geri Gardner as Information Manager and Carpgiane Dos Santos as Digital Construction Manager, above four colleagues. — *McLaughlin & Harvey’s digital construction team.*

Work with operations and the supply chain

The digital construction team worked with operations directors, project managers and contracts managers to develop processes and supporting technology. These colleagues were responsible for project delivery, so their involvement tied site use to a practical purpose rather than a separate digital exercise.

Supply-chain appointments set information duties. The company's supply-chain charter paired those obligations with a commitment to CDE training, and the team discussed what participants could achieve together through information delivery plans and data checks. Glenn was clear that buy-in remained difficult. Pushback and mistakes were still part of the work.

Before and after

Activity	Earlier handling in the team's account	Process presented in the source session
Project information	Information fell away at handovers and had to be built up again.	Common requirements, templates and defined responsibilities carried information work across project stages.
Viewpoint workflows	The CDE was already present but was not used to its full potential.	Geri and operations colleagues aligned workflows with the agreed business process.
Sharing check results	Separate report spreadsheets or another platform created a further handoff.	Existing hub users received check results and guidance through Morta.
Collecting supplier asset data	Returned spreadsheets had to find their way back into the asset register.	Subcontractors updated the register through their own views, with configured entry checks.

About McLaughlin & Harvey

McLaughlin & Harvey is a privately owned construction and civil engineering company founded in 1853 and operating across the UK and Ireland. Its work includes construction, civil engineering, fit-out and facilities management.

What comes next

The delivery dashboards were still in beta at the session. Solibri remained the team's model-checking tool, while Morta and Power BI supported sharing and reporting around those checks. The continuing work was to embed the processes with operations and the supply chain, with board support, while accepting that adoption still involved pushback and mistakes.

Watch Back to Basics: The McLaughlin & Harvey Approach to Information Management.